LCR20603

SUBJECT:
1. Various Issues


BACKGROUND:

2. This case concerns a dispute between the Company and a former staff member in relation to alleged unfair dismissal. The worker claims that she was dismissed unfairly without being afforded fair procedures. The issue concerns an alleged incident that occurred in the Company premises that resulted in a member being asked to leave the premises. The Claimant subsequently sought character references from staff as to the demeanour/behaviour of the club member prior to his departure from the premises. This subsequently led to a disciplinary process that the worker claims was unsatisfactory and that she herself was unable to attend due to certified illness. She claims that it was her inability to attend the disciplinary meeting that resulted in her dismissal as the seeking of character references in relation to someone known to her should not warrant such as severe sanction.

On the 12th April 2013 the worker referred the matter to the Labour Court in accordance with Section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969 and agreed to be bound by the Court's Recommendation. A Labour Court hearing took place on 29th August 2013.

The Company was notified of the date and time of the hearing but did not attend and was not represented.


WORKER'S ARGUMENTS:

3 1 The Company did not follow best practice in relation to the process as the same member of staff was involved in the initial incident and also at the investigative stage of the process.

2 The claimant was certified medically unfit to attend the disciplinary meeting and yet the meeting was not postponed to allow her to attend at a later date. As a result the decision to dismiss the worker was unfair and at variance with the principles of fair procedures and natural justice.

RECOMMENDATION:

The dispute comes before the Court under Section 20(1) of the Act. The Court invited the parties to make submissions on the issues in dispute. The Court, on the 29^thAugust, gave both parties the opportunity be heard on the matters before it. The Claimant attended at the hearing and was represented. The Respondent Company advised the Court that it would not be attending the hearing. Neither did it make any written submissions to the Court on the issues in dispute.

On the basis of the evidence before it the Court finds that the disciplinary investigation and the procedure followed in this case fall considerably short of the standards set out in Statutory Instrument No 146 of 2000. Accordingly the Court finds that the decision to dismiss the Claimant is unsafe and cannot be upheld.

The Court further finds that the Claimant, by her actions, contributed to the circumstances that brought about her dismissal.

In all the circumstances of the case the Court recommends that the Respondent Company pay the Claimant compensation in the sum of €1,200 for the unfair manner in which it treated the claimant in its management of this matter.

The Court so recommends.

Signed on behalf of the Labour Court



Brendan Hayes
27th September 2013______________________
AHDeputy Chairman



NOTE

Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Andrew Heavey, Court Secretary.